no it looks not like that, se the difference above, the aa-filter together with the sensor is a package and which canon changes and "improve" by the time, to me with the same sharpening the new camera has more details and shows also more moire in this case and in this detail and structure

Sure, it does have more detail. It also has moire. In my opinion, moire is an UNACCEPTABLE artifact, and indicates the AA filter is TOO WEAK. I don't want moire. It is a pain in the ass. It serves no purpose, and depending on exactly how it manifests, it might be impossible to eliminate. There isn't any point in having an AA filter at all if you are not eliminating or nearly eliminating moire. The amounts in all the other photographs are so significant that I don't understand why they have an AA filter at all. The entire goal is to ELIMINATE moire, or at least reduce it to levels where it is not obvious without deeper examination (which is the case with the 7D, which actually indicates the AA filter is still ever so slightly too weak).

MOIRE == BAD! Softness == manageable!

You can sharpen a photo with ease, and extract detail that is there. Particularly today, with tools like those from Topaz and Nik, the ability to not only sharpen but REVERSE blurring gives us unprecedented ability to recover detail that is lost in a GLOBAL, LINEAR process like blurring from an AA filter or diffraction.

On a camera like the 7D, which is primarily built for action shooting...applications where you need reach...I expect the AA filter to be perfect. I don't want to be shooting anything...a baseball player wearing fabric, a bird with detailed feathers, an elk with its striated fur, or anything else that is likely to be shot with the 7D line of DSLRs with a weak AA filter. No one does. We don't like Moire. The only time you can actually get away without having an OLPF of the proper thickness (strength is determined by the thickness of the filters) is when you know for a fact that you will never have repeating patterns.

Landscapes is the only thing that really comes to mind as a viable situation where you would never have to worry about it, in which case it would be better to forego the AA filter entirely rather than have a weak one that needlessly softens detail without purpose. Ironically, that is also one of the only time I think most people really need two extra stops of DR, too. Well, the D800E is certainly king of the landscape photography world...but that does not mean a weak AA filter is a good thing all the time. It is not. Moire is bad news, and I believe it is even more important to make sure that consumer-grade cameras like the 650D, 700D, D7200, whatever, have properly designed OLPF filters such that they anti-alias at least as well as the 7D does, therefor serving their purpose: to eliminate moire.

Now, it is obvious you don't understand the purpose of an AA filter, are unwilling to acknowledge that the 7D's AA filter is doing EXACTLY what it is supposed to do to near-perfection, and are just here to argue the benefits of anyone other than Canon and deride Canon themselves once again. I am therefor done with this conversation. I've made my points. Multiple times. Until you acknowledge that raw IQ, regardless of how it is achieved, especially if it is achieved "at any cost", is not the only thing that matters in photography, I'm out.

no it looks not like that, se the difference above, the aa-filter together with the sensor is a package and which canon changes and "improve" by the time, to me with the same sharpening the new camera has more details and shows also more moire in this case and in this detail and structure

Sure, it does have more detail. It also has moire. In my opinion, moire is an UNACCEPTABLE artifact, and indicates the AA filter is TOO WEAK. I don't want moire. It is a pain in the ass. It serves no purpose, and depending on exactly how it manifests, it might be impossible to eliminate. There isn't any point in having an AA filter at all if you are not eliminating or nearly eliminating moire. The amounts in all the other photographs are so significant that I don't understand why they have an AA filter at all. The entire goal is to ELIMINATE moire, or at least reduce it to levels where it is not obvious without deeper examination (which is the case with the 7D, which actually indicates the AA filter is still ever so slightly too weak).

MOIRE == BAD! Softness == manageable!

You can sharpen a photo with ease, and extract detail that is there. Particularly today, with tools like those from Topaz and Nik, the ability to not only sharpen but REVERSE blurring gives us unprecedented ability to recover detail that is lost in a GLOBAL, LINEAR process like blurring from an AA filter or diffraction.

On a camera like the 7D, which is primarily built for action shooting...applications where you need reach...I expect the AA filter to be perfect. I don't want to be shooting anything...a baseball player wearing fabric, a bird with detailed feathers, an elk with its striated fur, or anything else that is likely to be shot with the 7D line of DSLRs with a weak AA filter. No one does. We don't like Moire. The only time you can actually get away without having an OLPF of the proper thickness (strength is determined by the thickness of the filters) is when you know for a fact that you will never have repeating patterns.

Landscapes is the only thing that really comes to mind as a viable situation where you would never have to worry about it, in which case it would be better to forego the AA filter entirely rather than have a weak one that needlessly softens detail without purpose. Ironically, that is also one of the only time I think most people really need two extra stops of DR, too. Well, the D800E is certainly king of the landscape photography world...but that does not mean a weak AA filter is a good thing all the time. It is not. Moire is bad news, and I believe it is even more important to make sure that consumer-grade cameras like the 650D, 700D, D7200, whatever, have properly designed OLPF filters such that they anti-alias at least as well as the 7D does, therefor serving their purpose: to eliminate moire.

Now, it is obvious you don't understand the purpose of an AA filter, are unwilling to acknowledge that the 7D's AA filter is doing EXACTLY what it is supposed to do to near-perfection, and are just here to argue the benefits of anyone other than Canon and deride Canon themselves once again. I am therefor done with this conversation. I've made my points. Multiple times. Until you acknowledge that raw IQ, regardless of how it is achieved, especially if it is achieved "at any cost", is not the only thing that matters in photography, I'm out.

Not anymore. The smartphone market is eating the lunch of point-and-shoot cameras. Take a look at, for example, Flickr's camera stats. The top 5 are all iPhone or Canon DSLR models. If you further look at just Canon's cameras, the first non-DSLR camera comes in at #19.

Now I'm not saying that Flickr users are representative—they probably are more likely to use quality gear than your average person—but it's an indicator of the direction that the market is going. As far as future sales are concerned, the point-and-shoot camera market is pretty much dead and buried at this point, and is a waste of R&D spending.

it looks stronger than other filter canon have used together with theirs newer 18Mp cameras as here

Just for comparison...I've sharpened the 7D image just enough to compare to the image with a weaker AA filter (and note, this is a JPEG being sharpened...so compression artifacts are limiting my abilities here...give me a RAW, and I can do MUCH better! :